Seventeen year old unarmed child killed in Florida and no one is in jail.
I have been following the story datelined Sanford, Florida of the killing of the 17 year old teenager, Trayvon Martin by a neighborhood security block watcher, George Zimmerman. Here's what we know at this point. Martin was walking through his father's Sanford neighborhood after buying a bag of Skittles and some iced tea at a store. Zimmerman, in his SUV, allegedly observed Martin walking in the neighborhood, and reported to a police dispatcher that Martin was acting suspicious, looking at homes and looked like he was on drugs (Suspicious Walking While Black; SWWB). Zimmerman then said, “These guys always get away". The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following Martin and Zimmerman responded, "Yes." The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin, let the police handle it.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Glenn Contrarian
Dan -
Read #2 above - it conflicts with much of what you said, and gives all the references you need to verify it. But of course, you MUST NOT BELIEVE anything my references give since they don't fit in with your personal prejudices....
27 - Dan
"I particularly like how Dan is almost zealously eager to accept the theory of George Zimmerman "standing his ground" and acting in self-defense."---Dreadful
Well, according to the eyewitness, and Zimmerman, he wasn't "standing his ground", he was laying on the ground being pummeled bloody.
Roger, I think Zimmerman is likely trying to avoid being lynched.
28 - Dan
Glenn, your #2 also starts out by proclaiming Zimmerman to be a 28 year old "white man". He clearly is not.
If Zimmerman had developed a cure for cancer or some such, the media would be praising him as a Hispanic. But since he stands accused of murdering a black 17 year old he is now white.
29 - Dr Dreadful
But since he stands accused of murdering a black 17 year old he is now white.
Or he suddenly became Hispanic when he was accused of a racist vigilante killing.
30 - Jordan Richardson
Hey Dan! I was wondering when you were gonna show up on this thread. You did not disappoint, chief. :)
31 - Dr Dreadful
I saw the Fox News interview with this "eyewitness" (interviewed while hiding behind his front door), which was such an abysmal piece of journalism it wouldn't have made it onto most local news broadcasts.
And actually, the eyewitness said nothing about seeing Zimmerman "being pummeled bloody". That's your conclusion, Dan, and nothing else.
32 - Glenn Contrarian
Dan -
"He can't be racist - he's Hispanic!"
Just like "I can't be racist - I've got a friend who's black!"
Both are equally fallacious, for I've known many a racist to whom the second statement applied including - for many years - myself.
So don't give me your crap, Dan. In many ways it's quite similar to being an AA sponsor of an alcoholic. The sponsor - who knows firsthand what it's like being an alcoholic - knocks down the excuses of the alcoholic, because he's been there, done that. When it comes to prejudice and racism, Dan, I've been there, done that, and I know all too well the excuses and prejudice that rule your mind.
33 - Glenn Contrarian
And concerning the "self-protection" law:
============================
Martin weighed nearly 100 pounds less than Zimmerman and was found carrying only a bag of Skittles candy and a can of iced tea. Police said that without evidence proving that Zimmerman attacked Martin first, they had no grounds to charge him with a crime.
Dennis Baxley, a Republican state representative and co-author of the 2005 self-defense law, said Zimmerman negated his ability to claim immunity under the law by chasing Martin.
"This law is for innocent, law-abiding citizens who are under attack by a perpetrator," Baxley told The Huffington Post. "Anyone who is out pursuing and confronting people is not protected by this statute."
"I think they need to go back and read the statute," Baxley said, referring to the Sanford Police Department.
Former Republican State Sen. Durell Peadon, another co-author of the law, said Zimmerman "has no protection under my law."
"They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid," Peadon told the Miami Herald on Tuesday.
Gun rights advocates also question the decision not to charge Zimmerman.
"I don't see why he hasn't been arrested," said Sean Caranna, executive director of Florida Carry, a gun rights group.
Zimmerman had no right to follow and confront Martin in the first place, Caranna noted.
"Being the neighborhood watch guy doesn't give you carte blanche to stop and question every guy you see walking down the street," Caranna said.
=================================
34 - Glenn Contrarian
Of course Zimmermann can't be racist - that's why he said something that sounds a LOT like "fucking coons" in the 911 call.
35 - Igor
Zimmerman, and his gun, seem to have disappeared.
36 - roger nowosielski
Leave it to the BC crowd for almost any comments space, whatever the topic, to turn hilarious.
37 - Glenn Contrarian
I wasn't aware that any of us were being hilarious. Perhaps sarcastic, but there's not much humor to be found here - except, perhaps, in the eyes of bitter cynics like the Comedian in "The Watchmen".
38 - Dan
"Or he suddenly became Hispanic when he was accused of a racist vigilante killing."---Dreadful
Yes, how convienient that he looks hispanic and has hispanic ancestory (Damn tricky white guys.)
Glenn, I made no suggestion as to any "racist" motivation, or lack there of, from Zimmerman. This is all from your fevered imagination. I simply pointed out that he is not white as your "evidence" from comment #2 claimed.
Actually, we don't agree on what "racism" is, or who is being victimized by the concept of "racism". So defending someone from the charge of "racism" is something I would do only after agreeing to your convoluted and often contradictory concept. Which, I do not.
If Zimmerman was not attacked, beat down, and bloodied as the evidence and witnesses suggest, or even if Zimmermans' aggresive psuedo-cop routine was a physical confrontation that warranted a bloody beat down, then I would join the consensus. But it doesn't appear to me that there is sufficient evidence for that.
39 - Dr Dreadful
Yes, how convienient that he looks hispanic and has hispanic ancestory
Setting aside the question of what Hispanic is supposed to look like, he also has white ancestry.
I just think it's interesting that his Hispanic side came out only after the question was raised that the shooting might have been racially motivated ("George can't be racist, he's Latino").
If Zimmerman was not attacked, beat down, and bloodied as the evidence and witnesses suggest
You seem to be the only one they suggest this to.
40 - Zingzing
Tell you what, Dan... I'll follow you around for an evening carrying a gun. I'd really like to see how you take it. I expect that you'd be very gracious, but I might have other ideas. You never know what the guy following you about has on his mind. Maybe I'd like directions. To your skull [metal music].
41 - Cannonshop
Ahgoddammitherewegoagain...
Enough with the RACE crap, people. Zimmermann is not an HISPANIC name, it's origin is GERMAN, the majority hispanic population in Florida is of Cuban/Caribbean stock, not Mexican, Guatemalan, etc.
The only fact that matters here, is that a 17 year old boy was shot by a 28 year old man who outmassed him by near enough to a hundered pounds that it didn't matter, and the killer managed to jawbone out of it because the Police either didn't understand the law in question, or chose to interpret it in an odd way that let them not take action.
The VICTIM is of african ancestry, the killer is of mixed ancestry-it doesn't really matter what KIND of mixed ancestors. What matters is, Zimmermann got away with murder, right in public.
I'd say he'd BETTER run. Someone might decide to "Self Defense" HIM to death, and with this kind of public outcry, the prosecutors that let him walk would probably nod, smile, and say "Well, the law's tying our hands..."
42 - zingzing
oh, come on, cannonshop... do you really think race had nothing to do with this? unless martin was doing something suspicious, and there's no real indication he was, he was profiled by zimmerman. something tells me that if martin had been a 17-year-old blond girl, none of this would have happened. maybe i'm wrong, but i really doubt it.
43 - Cannonshop
#22 Roger, Zimmermann chased the kid down, picked a fight and shot him. per ANGLO SAXON rules, he's a douchebag who picked the fight, thus removing any NORMAL claim of "Self Defense"...per Anglo-saxon rules, so don't go there, 'kay? Upon further reflection and the statements of the bill's authors, I'd say the reason Zimmermann is walking, is a political one-the cops wanted to make the law in question look bad to influence the public (and given my earlier reaction, it partly worked!)
I'd go further and say that this offers MORE proof that City cops just can't be trusted, and shouldn't be. Especially in the South.
44 - Cannonshop
#42 No, Zing, I'd have to say race definitely DID play a part-this IS the Deep South we're talking about, a racist hellpit in the best areas. Racist Cops, in particular, not that different from Los Angeles (Californian) racist cops-selectively interpreting the law for their own ends.
But more to it, Zimmermann's race, whether "White", "Mixed" or "Hispanic" has nothing to do with it. his victim's race might well have had something to do with it, the event having happened, after all, in Florida, another racist hell-pit next door to racist hell-pits Georgia and Mississippi.
I was mainly aiming my disgust at the argument over the Killer's racial background-which is silly AND irrelevant. He's a murderer, who got away with it. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter if he's white, brown, or purple with crimson polka-dots, the guy murdered a kid he outmassed after chasing said kid down, with a gun. In public. and got away with it.
That's the ONLY thing that matters, other than HOW he got away with it. Whether because he had some racist cops on his side, or because he had cops and prosecutors who didn't like a law that was intended to empower citizens instead of making them helpless serfs, those are the only questions that matter-because both have the same answer-the Judicial system in Florida's obviously, visibly corrupted, and people are dying as a result, and confidence IN the judicial system is eroded as a result-which will, on balance, get MORE people killed.
AND if it spreads, or has spread, nationally? things aren't looking good.
But let's be real frelling clear here, Zing, Trayvon Martin's murder is a crime against ALL OF US. not just Blacks, not just Floridians, ALL of us-because his killer walks away scot-free due to corrupt officials, which is another crime against ALL OF US.
I will reiterate my sincere hope that Zimmermann gets "Self Defensed" in that jurisdiction-to death. Or fed to the alligators, I don't care which. I don't trust the courts with his ass, they'll coddle it.
Maybe it's that dirty raving 1/10th Anglo Saxon blood I've got, but Zimmermann bullied that kid, chased him down, harassed him, started a fight, and murdered him. I really could give a shit less why he claims he did it, the fact is, he saw someone he could harm with impunity and did so, and imho he needs to pay, in blood and pain, hopefully as painfully as possible before expiring in a humiliating way.
are we clear?
45 - zingzing
alright, tiger. he should be prosecuted and put away for a long time. and if he ever does get out, he shouldn't be able to own a gun. no need to go getting your bloodlust up.
46 - Glenn Contrarian
Cannonshop -
his victim's race might well have had something to do with it, the event having happened, after all, in Florida, another racist hell-pit next door to racist hell-pits Georgia and Mississippi.
Mississippi? Racist? Cannonshop, how DARE you even insinuate such a thing! Why, I never!
47 - LeshaB
I agree with igor,connonshop,clavos,dr dreadful & glenn, all of you that said zimmerman had probable cause for shooting that young man is is just ask screwed up as he is.. from what I've been reading in ALL these articles Trayvon did nothing wrong, he had every reason to walk wiith his hoodie on...is it against the law to protect yourself from the rain? Or to put your hood up because some strange looking maniac is following you? I mean what was he going to do to a 250 lb man, hit him in the eye with a skittle?? And because zimmerman pleads "self-defense" the idiot cops just roll with it??? Let's be serious here, I don't even have to say it we all know why Trayvon Martin is dead and he deserves JUSTICE THAT'S IT, THAT'S ALL JUSTICE
48 - Clavos
the majority hispanic population in Florida is of Cuban/Caribbean stock...
True at one time, but not for many years now; the south and central americans now outnumber the caribs and cubans by a substantial margin.
49 - Clavos
Um, LeshaB:
I never said Zimmerman had probable cause for killing Martin; nor, for that matter, did anyone else you mention in your comment.
50 - LeshaB
Clavos- I said I AGREE with you and the others read it again hun
51 - Igor
Maybe more people are killed because of this law
Miami Herald
TRAYVON MARTIN SHOOTING DEATH
Number of "stand your ground" cases rises as legislators rethink law
A Tampa Bay Times survey shows that police and prosecutors continue to apply the "stand your ground" law unevenly.
The "stand your ground" law
Florida Statute 776.013 (3): "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
By Ben Montgomery and Connie Humburg
Tampa Bay Times staff writers
The controversial law which police have cited in their decision not to charge the man who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin has been invoked at least 130 times statewide since 2005.
A Tampa Bay Times survey, compiled from 31 Florida newspapers and public records, shows that the number of cases in which "stand your ground" has been invoked has climbed dramatically in the past year and a half. The analysis shows that police and prosecutors continue to apply the law unevenly.
As pressure mounts to charge George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who ignored police advice not to confront the unarmed teen on Feb. 26, Gov. Rick Scott announced he would convene a task force to study the law. No group keeps a tally of cases in which Florida Statute 776.013 (3), commonly known as the "stand your ground" law, is invoked.
The law expands a citizen's right to use deadly force anywhere that he has a right to be if he "reasonably believes" it is necessary to stop another person from killing or hurting him badly.
The Times analysis shows that more than 70 percent of the 130 cases involved a fatality. In the majority of the cases, the person who plunged the knife or swung the bat or pulled the trigger did not face a trial.
In 50 of the cases, the person who used force was never charged with a crime. Another nine defendants were granted immunity by a judge and nine cases were dismissed.
In 10 cases, the defendant pleaded guilty to lesser crimes.
Of the 28 cases that made it to trial, 19 people were found guilty of a crime.
Twenty-two cases are still pending. (The outcomes of two could not be learned by press time.)
The Times analysis also shows that "stand your ground" is being invoked with greater frequency.
52 - Clavos
I know you said you agree, but I repeat: I never said he had probable cause.
I did point out that he had the "stand your ground" law to hide behind, but that's not the same thing as probable cause.
53 - Igor
Here's the actual statute:
Florida statute
The 2011 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012?Use of force in defense of person.
776.013?Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
776.031?Use of force in defense of others.
776.032?Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
776.041?Use of force by aggressor.
776.05?Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.
776.051?Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.
776.06?Deadly force.
776.07?Use of force to prevent escape.
776.08?Forcible felony.
776.085?Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.
776.012?Use of force in defense of person. A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1)?He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2)?Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.â€"s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
776.013?Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.â€"
(1)?A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a)?The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b)?The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2)?The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a)?The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b)?The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c)?The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d)?The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4)?A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5)?As used in this section, the term:
(a)?“Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobiThe 2011 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
View Entire Chapter
CHAPTER 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012?Use of force in defense of person.
776.013?Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
776.031?Use of force in defense of others.
776.032?Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
776.041?Use of force by aggressor.
776.05?Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.
776.051?Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.
776.06?Deadly force.
776.07?Use of force to prevent escape.
776.08?Forcible felony.
776.085?Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.
776.012?Use of force in defense of person.-A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1)?He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2)?Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
776.013?Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.-
(1)?A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a)?The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b)?The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2)?The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a)?The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b)?The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c)?The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d)?The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4)?A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5)?As used in this section, the term:
(a)?“Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b)?“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c)?“Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.-s. 1, ch. 2005-27.
776.031?Use of force in defense of others.-A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27.
776.032?Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.-
(1)?A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2)?A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3)?The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
History.-s. 4, ch. 2005-27.
776.041?Use of force by aggressor.-The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
776.05?Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.-A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1)?Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2)?When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3)?When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:
(a)?The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b)?The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.
History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 75-64; s. 1, ch. 87-147; s. 54, ch. 88-381; s. 1191, ch. 97-102.
776.051?Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.-
(1)?A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.
(2)?A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, is not justified in the use of force if the arrest or execution of a legal duty is unlawful and known by him or her to be unlawful.
History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1192, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 2008-67.
776.06?Deadly force.-
(1)?The term “deadly force” means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to:
(a)?The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
(b)?The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.
(2)(a)?The term “deadly force” does not include the discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer during and within the scope of his or her official duties which is loaded with a less-lethal munition. As used in this subsection, the term “less-lethal munition” means a projectile that is designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person without penetrating the person’s body.
(b)?A law enforcement officer or a correctional officer is not liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of the use of any less-lethal munition in good faith during and within the scope of his or her official duties.
History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 99-272.
776.07?Use of force to prevent escape.-
(1)?A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody.
(2)?A correctional officer or other law enforcement officer is justified in the use of force, including deadly force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a penal institution of a person whom the officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense.
History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 7, ch. 95-283; s. 1193, ch. 97-102.
776.08?Forcible felony.-“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.
776.085?Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.-
(1)?It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence.
(2)?For the purposes of this section, the term “forcible felony” shall have the same meaning as in s. 776.08.
(3)?Any civil action in which the defense recognized by this section is raised shall be stayed by the court on the motion of the civil defendant during the pendency of any criminal action which forms the basis for the defense, unless the court finds that a conviction in the criminal action would not form a valid defense under this section.
(4)?In any civil action where a party prevails based on the defense created by this section:
(a)?The losing party, if convicted of and incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, shall, as determined by the court, lose any privileges provided by the correctional facility, including, but not limited to:
1.?Canteen purchases;
2.?Telephone access;
3.?Outdoor exercise;
4.?Use of the library; and
5.?Visitation.
(b)?The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney; however, the losing party’s attorney is not personally responsible if he or she has acted in good faith, based on the representations of his or her client. If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime and has insufficient assets to cover payment of the costs of the action and the award of fees pursuant to this paragraph, the party shall, as determined by the court, be required to pay by deduction from any payments the prisoner receives while incarcerated.
(c)?If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, the court shall issue a written order containing its findings and ruling pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) and shall direct that a certified copy be forwarded to the appropriate correctional institution or facility.
History.-s. 1, ch. 87-187; s. 72, ch. 96-388.
54 - Cannonshop
However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
History.-s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27.
776.032?Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.-
(1)?A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2)?A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
and here's the section that the Sanford cops used as their excuse, as well as the bit that shows why it's NOT an excuse.
'cause let's face it, even by witness reports, this has probable cause to investigate Zimmermann's use of force alllll over it, nevermind the victim's background, which just makes it worse. I'm starting to think there are some cops in Sanford that need to have their badges taken away.
55 - LeshaB
Alright I just thought you misread the comment that's all
56 - LeshaB
I wasn't saying that YOU said he had probable cause I didn't say that anyone said it, perhaps I misused my words, I didn't comment for argument ;)
57 - Dan
"Setting aside the question of what Hispanic is supposed to look like, he also has white ancestry"---Dreadful
It's quite possible that Trayvon had some white ancestry. African Americans average about a 20% admixture. So I guess if you wanted to play race games you could say that the killing was "white on white".
"I just think it's interesting that his Hispanic side came out only after the question was raised that the shooting might have been racially motivated ("George can't be racist, he's Latino")."---Dreadful
Yep, it's a point I've made often: Whites do not receive equal protection under law. In the very societies they conceived and created, and opened to "the other".
hell yea. "Jorge" Zimmerman would be foolish not to trot his status and change that narrative. He'll be wearing tourquoise from here out.
I think it's reasonable to assume that a main reason why the story had national legs to begin with was the "white on black" narrative. Of all the mayhem people of color unfortunately seem to find themselves mixed up in, there certainly were more compelling sufferings that weekend.
58 - Nate Barrino
I have a few hypothetical view points,that may,or may not, come to fruition!
1. Zimmerman's prior run-ins with authorities, cripples his chances of a career as a police.
2. Zimmerman's rejection of becoming an official policeman, is knocked down and crushed.
3. A legal (neighborhood watch) program was not for Zimmerman, due to restrictions of handguns, pepper sprays, and the like.
4. Therefore, he offers his volunteer, and/or vigilante service, to the Florida Police Dept., in hopes of squashing his past transgressions, and eventually land him a job with the force.
5. Dedicated to his ambition of becoming a police officer, He's given certain geographical areas to monitor when called upon.
6. Unfortunately, in an assigned gated community, he wondered upon an innocent situation of which he felt would catapult his heroism; however, it backfired.
7. As a young, Black, gifted and innocent boy, lay dying in a pool of his blood, Zimmerman is in a quagmire, and in dire need of a motive.
8. Though 911 audio entails much, They would all manufacture a bogus "self defense", to a cold-bloodied scenario, that is now crumbling.
9. Due to the chief's obliviousness of Zimmerman's relationship to him, his threats of bringing the chief and the entire department down with him, looms large, and huge rocks are falling! In essence, there just maybe a lot of threatening steps to that ladder!!
10. A leader's temporary leave of absence will develop a more permanent status, and everyone involved in this mastery of deception will falter. Surely, Trayvon Martin will (check-mate) them all from his grave, and his soul shall rest.
59 - Dr Dreadful
Whites do not receive equal protection under law. In the very societies they conceived and created, and opened to "the other".
You probably typed that with a straight face, Dan, which is pretty fascinating.
You're absolutely right, though. Whites don't receive equal protection: they receive far better protection, as study after study has shown.
60 - Igor
"Dan" really blew his credibility with this howler:
"Whites do not receive equal protection under law. In the very societies they conceived and created, and opened to "the other"."
Dan: do you mean when they 'opened' society to blacks by enslaving them in the holds of leaky boats and compelling them 4000 miles across the sea to the forced labor camps?
Etc., etc.
This is just too easy.
Try to do better next time "Dan".
61 - Clavos
Dan: do you mean when they 'opened' society to blacks by enslaving them in the holds of leaky boats and compelling them 4000 miles across the sea to the forced labor camps?
Ancient history, Igor. Besides, for the most part, other Africans enslaved them; Americans bought them after they were already slaves.
62 - Daniel Lockwood
These 'Stand Your Ground' laws allow a killer to eliminate the most crucial witnesses in any investigation - the victims point of view...
63 - Dan
"You're absolutely right, though. Whites don't receive equal protection: they receive far better protection, as study after study has shown."---Dreadful
Well, "study after study" has attempted to show that. The racial grievance industry is tenacious about preserving their false narrative. Typically these pre-concluded "studies" will be presented in the liberal media with great fanfare and then quietly debunked later as real statistical scholars get a look at the methodologic bias. The cycle is then repeated.
But instead of going off on that tangent, why not explain why you thought it "interesting" that his "Hispanic side" came out after the shooting was described as a white on black shooting by reporters in comment #39? Try to be honest. Isn't it because you realized that he would get better treatment as a hispanic?
The violation of whites "equal protection" goes much farther than just criminal law. It is fully institutionalized in the vast myriad of "Affirmative Action" legislation, most of which is suppressed from scrutiny by it's white victims.
"Ancient history, Igor. Besides, for the most part, other Africans enslaved them; Americans bought them after they were already slaves."---Clavos
Yep, nothing like the now discredited fairy tale described in the film "Roots". Also, not long after the US was established they were freed and civil rights legislation made their decendants perpetual benefactors of unequal privilege to this day. Immigration law was then amended in 1965 so that massively more third worlders could flee their failed societies and take up privileged status over the founding stock who are supposedly being "enriched" by the diversity.
64 - Dr Dreadful
Typically these pre-concluded "studies" will be presented in the liberal media with great fanfare and then quietly debunked later as real statistical scholars get a look at the methodologic bias.
Again with this tendency of yours to change the narrative to suit your own prejudices, while making no attempt to back it up with, oh, anything at all. Citations. Studies. Things like that.
why not explain why you thought it "interesting" that his "Hispanic side" came out after the shooting was described as a white on black shooting by reporters in comment #39? Try to be honest. Isn't it because you realized that he would get better treatment as a hispanic?
No, it's because he realized he might not be accused of racism if he weren't white. I fully realize that this was a cynical comment, but it might be what his thinking (or his father's) was.
65 - Cannonshop
#62 Considering that Expediency, not Evidence, determines more often whether a murder is investigated. I think that perhaps, the victim's point of view's been absent for quite some time, Mr. Lockwood.
The Martin case is more about the culture of central florida, and racism in the south, than it is about self-defense laws, though you might ask yourself sometime why those laws are seen as necessary.
Remember also this: the police aren't obligated to protect you, (ask anyone from an urban hellpit slum), they're only obligated to clean up the mess and create a file on your murder. If they don't see you as important to them, if the case looks like it might be somewhat difficult, or if they don't want to touch the only suspect, they'll FIND an excuse to blow the investigation outright, if that is the culture of that department. OJ comes to mind as a shining example of this one, there are others.
66 - Dr Dreadful
you might ask yourself sometime why those laws are seen as necessary.
That's a crucial question, Cannon: to which I venture the answer that one cannot legislate common sense.
(To wit, there's always going to be some stupid, idealistic, ambitious or just plain vindictive DA who'll want to prosecute for homicide even when a defendant was clearly acting reasonably and in self-defense.)
67 - Cannonshop
#66 exactly, Doc. Taken from the bare facts as we know them in the Zimmermann/Martin case, Trayvon Martin was standing his ground, and Zimmermann's a murderer.
Why, some might ask?
Zimmerman pursued this kid, lost him for five minutes, hunted him down, and initiated a confrontation. In any other circumstances, that's simple assault, but Zimmerman was ARMED-that makes it assault with a deadly weapon.
Both are violent felonies-IF Trayvon managed (as some witnesses allege) to knock this larger-than-he-is man down, (I'd almost speculate Trayvon would have to be the new incarnation of bruce lee to do it), that's okay under the law-Trayvon was under attack. Unfortunately, Trayvon wasn't armed, and Zimmerman was. Misinterpretation at the scene and now the debate's gone screwy.
68 - Dan
"...it's because he realized he might not be accused of racism if he weren't white"---Dreadful
Correct!! Being accused of racism is very detrimental to receiving "equal treatment" under law. This is what I speak of when I point out that "racism" is a social construct designed to subjugate white people
by blaming them for other races natural, scientifically demonstrated, lack of ability to achieve equal societal outcomes.
"Zimmerman pursued this kid, lost him for five minutes, hunted him down, and initiated a confrontation"---Cannonshop
You might want to put the rope down there Cannonshop. It looks like things are beginning to turn Zimmermans way.
The Police have reiterated the fact that Zimmerman was bleeding from both the front and back of his head and the eye witness has reiterated that he saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman bashing away as Zimmerman screamed for help.
Zimmerman has a very well spoken half black friend who maintains Zimmerman was a well respected member of the community who has had a lot of success solving and preventing crimes in the neighborhood.
Zimmerman apparantly did things like tutor young black children.
It appears Trayvon was suspended from school for "drug activity". Or it might have been for beating a school bus driver. It also appears that a locker search revealed Trayvon was in possession of "burglary tools" and several items of womens jewelry.
Zimmermans story, which hasn't changed, is that he initially pursued Trayvon to moniter his location as a neighborhood watch captain is entitled to do before the cops show. When the police person told him "we don't need you to do that" (notice that's not an order), Zimmerman complied, he said "ok" and returned toward his vehicle. This was when Trayvon allegedly jumped him. The athletic 6'2 160lb (not 140lb) Trayvon allegedly knocked 5'9 200lb zimmerman to the ground with one punch, and then proceeded to jump on top pummeling zimmerman, as the witness described.
This looks like the Duke Lacrosse rape case all over again. Hopefully the dishonest reportage of the story will not lead to Al Sharpton and the Black Panther retards ripping innocent white people from cars and beating the crap out of them, the way other similarly errant black retards have done in the past.
Fortunately, Trayvons parents have trademarked several phrases with Trayvons name in them, so if they can't get Zimmerman lynched at least they'll be able to get some "justice" by making a few bucks off of their dead son.
69 - Dr Dreadful
Being accused of racism is very detrimental to receiving "equal treatment" under law.
I wasn't talking about Zimmerman anticipating worse treatment from the law, I was talking about him anticipating a worse reaction from the public.
Doesn't seem like it worked.
This is what I speak of when I point out that "racism" is a social construct designed to subjugate white people
Funny, everybody else understands that racism is antagonism and/or discrimination against a person or group of people based solely on the colour of their skin or their (perceived) ethnic origin.
other races natural, scientifically demonstrated, lack of ability to achieve equal societal outcomes.
Every time you bring up this canard it is pointed out to you that this "scientific" evidence has been largely discredited and that the studies in question usually failed to take environmental factors into account, yet you continue to insist upon it.
70 - Dan
"Doesn't seem like it worked."---Dreadful
I think it did. I've been hearing him now described as "white hispanic". You knew they would have to get around to it sooner or later. It's too obvious
71 - Dan
"Every time you bring up this canard it is pointed out to you that this "scientific" evidence has been largely discredited..."---Dreadful
And then I demonstrate irrefutably that it has not. You had your chance, you lost the argument. I don't intend to re-demonstrate scientific fact every time you put on the Alinsky denial show.
72 - Dr Dreadful
And then I demonstrate irrefutably that it has not. You had your chance, you lost the argument.
You fail to demonstrate anything of the kind. You simply state that something is so and then don't bother to back your claim up.
And you don't get to declare yourself the winner either.
What is it with right-wingers' pathological need to claim that their arguments are irrefutable?
73 - Jet Gardner
Doc... really? How many times to I have to explain the Bill Maher bubble to you?
74 - Dan
"You fail to demonstrate anything of the kind. You simply state that something is so and then don't bother to back your claim up."---Dreadful
That is your behavior, not mine.
"And you don't get to declare yourself the winner either."---Dreadful
I just did. So you are wrong again.
I would say that if you have any problem with my declaration you should go back and review where I demonstrated that race realism is firmly supported by mainstream science, but it was such a slam dunk, and your ignorance of the science is so apparent (still clinging to the Lewontin fallacy) that I have to assume that your aggresive rejection of subjects you know next to nothing about belies a truly pathological predisposition.
Meanwhile, sane people get another reminder of the true nature of 90% of all interacial violence as a white 13 year old is dowsed in gasoline and set on fire while two 16 year old blacks explain to him "you get what you deserve white boy".
75 - zingzing
dan, how are you defining "mainstream science"?